What I noticed watching the Brand talk was how much alike the others he is. He relies on logical argument, akin to McKibben, but is an emphatic speaker like Jensen. There's some of the shock tactic of Food Inc. and some of the guilt trip of the Native American TED talk, combined with the myriad of factual data from eaarth and musings on the future from various articles. What has become apparent in this journey through the land of environmental literature is how easy it is to make an argument for anything, and how difficult it is to figure out who to believe. It seems there is scientific data out there for any future situation you might desire. While some consistencies exist (i.e. climate change will take away our current home, we have to adapt, we cannot depend on fossil fuels any longer, community is key), the "how" of the matter is up in the air.
This ambiguity may be the downfall of the environmental movement. With such strong opposition to reform raining down from big oil, big agriculture, and anyone who identifies Republican, some form of united front is necessary to invoke change at appropriate levels. With so many tracks coming out of the movement, with so many solutions, it is easy for confusion and mis-information to spread. The generalizations grow, and paint a very unfriendly picture - people who hate oil, who hate coal, who want a return to the "Old'n Days". That image is not one people want to get behind, because it messes with their position in the world. The transition to a sustainable society seems so large as to be insurmountable.
That same quality is also environmentalism's greatest strength, however. With so many options, each and every one should be explored in some capacity. Maybe we don't dissolve society at large as Jensen suggests, but we do return to more natural ways of living - get in touch with our inner native. As Brand says, solar and wind can't save the world, but that doesn't mean we can't use some. It seems that everyone (except those whose way of life will be destroyed by a transition - big oil, big ag) should be able to find some way to be environmental.
Brand's speech touched on a lot of issues, ranging from geoengineering to genetic modification to nuclear energy (those were his main claims, after all). He uses a very dry rhetoric, delivering his ideas in a matter-of-fact type of way. He very much tried to take the emotion out of the issue, by not getting angry or exaggerating. Brand is...pragmatic. I agree with him that nuclear is necessary - it seems the only thing that can realistically provide the energy to the growing world. I agree that GMO's are necessary - though I strongly believe in regulation of the process. Geoengineering will likely be used - people can't resist trying to control the world. Cities are green - eh, I don't want to live in a city (I like my space). But the rationale makes sense. I would write more, but this discussion is too intense to have my attention split.
Brand's speech touched on a lot of issues, ranging from geoengineering to genetic modification to nuclear energy (those were his main claims, after all). He uses a very dry rhetoric, delivering his ideas in a matter-of-fact type of way. He very much tried to take the emotion out of the issue, by not getting angry or exaggerating. Brand is...pragmatic. I agree with him that nuclear is necessary - it seems the only thing that can realistically provide the energy to the growing world. I agree that GMO's are necessary - though I strongly believe in regulation of the process. Geoengineering will likely be used - people can't resist trying to control the world. Cities are green - eh, I don't want to live in a city (I like my space). But the rationale makes sense. I would write more, but this discussion is too intense to have my attention split.
